Supreme Court Directs High Courts To Curb Delays In Pronouncing Reserved Judgments; Reiterates Anil Rai Guidelines

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard appeals challenging interim orders of the Allahabad High Court arising from a criminal appeal that was not taken up for final disposal despite being reserved for orders. The Court addressed the broader issue of delayed pronouncement of judgments in High Courts and issued administrative directions to prevent prolonged pendency after conclusion of arguments.

The Court summarised that the appeals arose from a long-pending criminal appeal which had been heard and reserved on 24.12.2021 but remained undecided for an extended period. It observed that such delays eroded public confidence in the judicial process and reiterated established directions previously laid down in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar and subsequent decisions. The Court noted that "It is extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment was not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Background The appeals arose from Criminal Appeal No.939 of 2008 pending before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in which the appellant (de facto complainant) contended that respondent no.2’s appeal had remained pending since 2008 despite repeated applications for early listing. The Division Bench of the High Court had heard arguments at length and reserved judgment on 24.12.2021; the judgment was not delivered and the matter was later relisted as per roster. The Registrar General of the High Court filed a report dated 29.01.2025 acknowledging that the appeal had been reserved and explaining subsequent administrative steps, including relisting and non-appearance on the adjourned date.

This Court recorded that it had earlier, by order dated 15.04.2025, requested the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously and directed the Registrar General to report. Drawing on precedents — notably Anil Rai (2001) and later authorities including Jagdev Singh Talwandi, Zahira Habibulla Sheikh, Mangat Ram, Ajay Singh, Balaji Mupade and Ratilal Parmar — the Court reiterated that the pronouncement of judgment was an integral part of the dispensation of justice and must not be unduly delayed. The Court held that where judgments remained unpronounced beyond prescribed intervals, the Registrar General must furnish monthly lists to the Chief Justice for three months; if a reserved judgment was not pronounced within three months, the Chief Justice would require the concerned Bench to pronounce the order within two weeks, failing which the matter should be assigned to another Bench. The appeals were disposed of with these directions and the Court directed circulation of the judgment to Registrar Generals of all High Courts for compliance.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).3700-3701 OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL.) NO(S).4509-4510 OF 2025; 2025 INSC 1039) Case Title: Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P. & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Advocate names not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Advocate names not indicated in the judgment]